Predictions of tragedy vs. tragedy of predictions in Northeast Asian security

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The main argument of this article is that most structure-oriented IR predictions about the future of Northeast Asia in the aftermath of the Cold War have been overwhelmingly pessimistic, thereby projecting a tragic regional order. They have failed to assess the progressive trends of regional interactions, mainly because their projections were blinded by the structure-oriented theoretical conjectures. My paper has three objectives: First, I attempt to empirically identify the diverging gap between the pessimistic predictions about the future of Northeast Asia made by the mainstream IR analysts and scholars during the post-Cold War era and the reality of the past 15 years, which has been relatively well-coordinated, cooperative, and surprisingly peaceful. I unpack the logical structure of these predictions and theoretically explain the reasons why there has been an increasing gap between the two. Second, I argue that conventional arguments about the future of Northeast Asia tend to overemphasize a few structural variables dictated by their theories, while underspecifying regional factors such as regional states' conscious efforts to manage the regional order. Lastly, I draw analytical implications that the actual choices made by state leaders of Northeast Asia must be the target of empirical examinations, not analytical assumptions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7-33
Number of pages27
JournalKorean Journal of Defense Analysis
Volume18
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jan 1

Fingerprint

cold war
regional factors
projection
leader
examination
trend
interaction

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Safety Research
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

@article{3114989e994046ae82d19655efe8e3dc,
title = "Predictions of tragedy vs. tragedy of predictions in Northeast Asian security",
abstract = "The main argument of this article is that most structure-oriented IR predictions about the future of Northeast Asia in the aftermath of the Cold War have been overwhelmingly pessimistic, thereby projecting a tragic regional order. They have failed to assess the progressive trends of regional interactions, mainly because their projections were blinded by the structure-oriented theoretical conjectures. My paper has three objectives: First, I attempt to empirically identify the diverging gap between the pessimistic predictions about the future of Northeast Asia made by the mainstream IR analysts and scholars during the post-Cold War era and the reality of the past 15 years, which has been relatively well-coordinated, cooperative, and surprisingly peaceful. I unpack the logical structure of these predictions and theoretically explain the reasons why there has been an increasing gap between the two. Second, I argue that conventional arguments about the future of Northeast Asia tend to overemphasize a few structural variables dictated by their theories, while underspecifying regional factors such as regional states' conscious efforts to manage the regional order. Lastly, I draw analytical implications that the actual choices made by state leaders of Northeast Asia must be the target of empirical examinations, not analytical assumptions.",
author = "Choi, {Jong Kun}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10163270609464097",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
pages = "7--33",
journal = "Korean Journal of Defense Analysis",
issn = "1016-3271",
publisher = "Korea Institute for Defense Analyses",
number = "1",

}

Predictions of tragedy vs. tragedy of predictions in Northeast Asian security. / Choi, Jong Kun.

In: Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Vol. 18, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 7-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predictions of tragedy vs. tragedy of predictions in Northeast Asian security

AU - Choi, Jong Kun

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - The main argument of this article is that most structure-oriented IR predictions about the future of Northeast Asia in the aftermath of the Cold War have been overwhelmingly pessimistic, thereby projecting a tragic regional order. They have failed to assess the progressive trends of regional interactions, mainly because their projections were blinded by the structure-oriented theoretical conjectures. My paper has three objectives: First, I attempt to empirically identify the diverging gap between the pessimistic predictions about the future of Northeast Asia made by the mainstream IR analysts and scholars during the post-Cold War era and the reality of the past 15 years, which has been relatively well-coordinated, cooperative, and surprisingly peaceful. I unpack the logical structure of these predictions and theoretically explain the reasons why there has been an increasing gap between the two. Second, I argue that conventional arguments about the future of Northeast Asia tend to overemphasize a few structural variables dictated by their theories, while underspecifying regional factors such as regional states' conscious efforts to manage the regional order. Lastly, I draw analytical implications that the actual choices made by state leaders of Northeast Asia must be the target of empirical examinations, not analytical assumptions.

AB - The main argument of this article is that most structure-oriented IR predictions about the future of Northeast Asia in the aftermath of the Cold War have been overwhelmingly pessimistic, thereby projecting a tragic regional order. They have failed to assess the progressive trends of regional interactions, mainly because their projections were blinded by the structure-oriented theoretical conjectures. My paper has three objectives: First, I attempt to empirically identify the diverging gap between the pessimistic predictions about the future of Northeast Asia made by the mainstream IR analysts and scholars during the post-Cold War era and the reality of the past 15 years, which has been relatively well-coordinated, cooperative, and surprisingly peaceful. I unpack the logical structure of these predictions and theoretically explain the reasons why there has been an increasing gap between the two. Second, I argue that conventional arguments about the future of Northeast Asia tend to overemphasize a few structural variables dictated by their theories, while underspecifying regional factors such as regional states' conscious efforts to manage the regional order. Lastly, I draw analytical implications that the actual choices made by state leaders of Northeast Asia must be the target of empirical examinations, not analytical assumptions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645530187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645530187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10163270609464097

DO - 10.1080/10163270609464097

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:33645530187

VL - 18

SP - 7

EP - 33

JO - Korean Journal of Defense Analysis

JF - Korean Journal of Defense Analysis

SN - 1016-3271

IS - 1

ER -